The fallacy of Oppenheimer Snyder collapse: no general relativistic collapse at all, no black hole, no physical singularity

Abstract

By applying Birkhoff's theorem to the problem of the general relativistic collapse of a uniform density dust, we directly show that the density of the dust ρ = 0 even when its proper number density n would be assumed to be finite! The physical reason behind this exact result can be traced back to the observation of Arnowitt et al. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 4: 375, 1960) that the gravitational mass of a neutral point particle is zero: m = 0. And since, a dust is a mere collection of neutral point particles, unlike a continuous hydrodynamic fluid, its density ρ = mn = 0. It is nonetheless found that for k = −1, a homogeneous dust can collapse and expand special relativistically in the fashion of a Milne universe. Thus, in reality, general relativistic homogeneous dust collapse does not lead to the formation of any black hole in conformity of many previous studies (Logunov et al.this result is in agreement with the intuition of Oppenheimer and Snyder (Phys. Rev. 56: 456, 1939) too:"Physically such a singularity would mean that the expressions used for the energy-momentum tensor does not take into account some essential physical fact which would really smooth the singularity out. Further, a star in its early stages of development would not possess a singular density or pressure, it is impossible for a singularity to develop in a finite time."

Kruskal Coordinates and Mass of Schwarzschild Black Holes: No Finite Mass Black Hole at All

“…Very recently, the Event Horizon Telescope has imaged a plasma jet coming out from a region within In reality, even by mundane classical GTR, as we found here, there is no finite mass BH [28,31,32,47,48] there is no EH, no EH thermodynamics (except area A = 0, and entropy S = 0), no "Hawking Radiation", and no voodoo "Firewall" [2,3,23,28,31,47]. Further instead of fictitious quantum gravitational "Hawking Radiation" or preHawking radiation, any gravitational collapse is accompanied by well understood radiation in the form of photons and neutrinos for which no unfounded QG is required [1][2][3][21][22][23]36].…”

“…Similarly, the exact solutions associated with the collapse of this homogeneous sphere too vacuous as they correspond to 0   [41]. And the collapse of a homogeneous pressure-less collapse (the OS collapse) too is vacuous because it corresponds to 0   [28,29]. As recently found, one of the most important metrics in GR, namely the de-Sitter metric, which is the basis for supposed "cosmic inflation" and "dark energy" is illusory because, for self-consistency, one must have cosmological constant 0   [42].…”

“…If the homogeneity assumption would be dropped, even the fictitious pressure-less dust solutions often lead to EH less Naked Singularity rather than a BH [4]. And it has recently been shown that the OS solution, though may appear to be mathematically correct, has only a symbolical value because it actually corresponds to zero matter density 0   [28]. This is expected because exact zero pressure, can be achieved only mathematically when 0 [29].…”

The Mass of the Oppenheimer–snyder-Black Hole: Only Finite Mass Quasi-Black Holes

“…In fact, the OS collapse is a mathematical illusion because, as revealed by the Birkhoff's theorem, it corresponds to ρ = M = 0. 7 In general, BH solutions represent asymptotic static states of continued gravitational collapse which are never realized at any finite proper time. In any case, BH solutions implicitly correspond to M = 0 implying that entire mass-energy must be radiated away asymptotically during continued collapse.…”

Why the Big Bang Model Cannot Describe the Observed Universe Having Pressure and Radiation

“…To further appreciate the fact how some of the exact solutions could be physically misleading, recall the case of the celebrated Oppenheimer-Snyder solution which has been considered as the ultimate proof that GR allows formation of "Black Holes" (BH). But now it has been shown that, this solution is only a mathematical illusion, it does not really imply any BH/singularity formation because a strict fluid has = 0 p = 0  too [4]. Similarly, by using this coordinate freedom of choosing time coordinate in GR and by directly integrating the part of the local energy momentum conservation equation:…”